update_service

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag this as a mutating, destructive tool, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: unknown or externally owned keys are skipped rather than erroring, the result is read back, and the write is persisted for a later scheduler pass without confirming it is live. The main omission is what happens when the service is missing and whether omitted fields are left untouched.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short clauses with no filler; the skip behavior and the async-application caveat are both front-loaded where the agent will read them.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description tells the agent the result is read back after applying skips, which is the key return-value fact. Together with the destructive annotation, that covers nearly everything needed to call it correctly, missing only failure behavior for an invalid service.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter is documented, including the skip-and-report semantics of 'variables'. The description mirrors rather than extends that, so it earns the baseline rather than more.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change a service's settings') and immediately scopes it against a named sibling ('Use global_config_update for global settings'). An agent can distinguish this from global_config_update and config_update without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit alternative for the adjacent case (global settings) and implies the per-service scope. It does not cover when-not-to-use cases such as a nonexistent service or what happens if the caller wants immediate effect, but the routing guidance is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.